A former biochemist with the Blood Transfusion Services Board has won a Supreme Court order requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to discover to her correspondence between his office and gardaí connected with charges she faces over the anti-D infected blood scandal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the DPP should make available documentation relevant to the charging of Cecily Cunningham with seven offences ranging over 15 years from 1977to 1992.
Ms Cunningham was charged in July 2003 with causing an infected anti-D immunoglobin to be taken thereby inflicting grievous bodily harm at St Munchin's Hospital, Limerick, on May 28th, 1977.
An expert group was established in 1994 to investigate the anti-D scandal and in October 1996 a tribunal of inquiry was set up. Mr Justice Thomas Finlay delivered his report in March 1997.
Ms Cunningham was charged six years and three months later.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, in a unanimous judgment of the three-judge court, said that after two lengthy inquiries, one by an expert group and the other by a former chief justice, the DPP came into possession of an enormous amount of material.
The file remained in the Director of Public Prosecution's office for "the very lengthy period" of over six years before Ms Cunningham was charged.
"This period of time may, of course, turn out to be quite justified, but it requires to be justified," the judge said.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that Ms Cunningham must have the opportunity of satisfying herself that what the DPP had chosen to refer to represents all the material relevant to the issue and was accurately characterised.
The court's finding that the DPP should make an affidavit of discovery in no way limited the DPP's position in relation to giving reasons for his decision to prosecute or not to do so.
He said the DPP had the fullest entitlement to claim privilege over any document as he might think fit but he must first list every document, whether he was willing to disclose it or not.